xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: No possibilities because it no longer exists. Because it was unpopular.

Two-teams BGs: Still alive, awake, and competitive. Primetime NA queues are short.

You'll see what popular means when 3-sided BGs return with the same rewards they added to 2-sided BGs. Also, the difference between the teams needs to be quite enormous for the one with healer to somehow lose to the one without. But sure, if you think that's balanced, you do you. By the way, you're also invited to play as a healer and keep observing BGs until you understand what's really happening.

Haven't done BGs in months. Played about a dozen matches in the past two days. Pretty sure it's obvious what's going on without the need to play a healer. PC/NA primetime ques are quick. I never had to wait more than 5 minutes. Some of the matches are lopsided. Some of them are really close (last night I had 504 to 497 Chaosball).

The biggest issue BGs has isn't the format, but its wonky MMR that has 16K health sorcerers with 139 CP pitted up in matches with 2600+ CP 5 stars. ZOS resetting people's MMR is dumb and just perpetuates a cycle in which players are vastly different levels of skill & experience are constantly put in the same match. This is terrible for just about any PvP game, but especially with ESO where the barrier of entry is so high and an inexperienced player will not even inconvenience a vet.

The wonky way in which medals/score are awarded is also a big problem. That this hasn;t been fixed yet is unacceptable. ZOS is not some indie operation, it is a studio that has generated a reported $2 billion from Elder Scrolls Online.

I would say as someone who is very critical of ESO's current combat - I hate the heavy bias toward defense/healing and think the balance is awful - BGs are fun when the matches are reasonably close. There is a lot of potential here. If ZOS would stop operating like an indie studio, I think they could have a game system that could attract a steady and consistent audience

AngryNecro wrote: »

Wow it turns out that this is whining about boring BG from healers lol. So maybe not playing as a healer will make the game more interesting? heallers not need on BG xD

why Haki stopped reading topik and only post hes boring video? Judging by the screenshots, he's a pretty mediocre player, maybe if he had read he would have learned something xD

Stop playing as a healer.

Play a different character.

Go play in cyro or ic.

Only a few people liked the old format so get used to it.

These comments aren't helpful, some are demonstrably false, and all border on pathetic attempts at apologetics for zos' decision to remove a functioning and enjoyable part of the game for many players who pay real money to play this game.

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: No possibilities because it no longer exists. Because it was unpopular.

Two-teams BGs: Still alive, awake, and competitive. Primetime NA queues are short.

You'll see what popular means when 3-sided BGs return with the same rewards they added to 2-sided BGs. Also, the difference between the teams needs to be quite enormous for the one with healer to somehow lose to the one without. But sure, if you think that's balanced, you do you. By the way, you're also invited to play as a healer and keep observing BGs until you understand what's really happening.

I play healer as well quite frequently on every class, what am I supposed to be observing? That you can make an impact as an individual if you have a good healer build and keep your team alive?

You can also have a poor build that lacks survivability/team support dependent on your team carrying you (instead of the other way around) and then complain about "lopsided BGs" when going 0-7 etc... but that's a fixable problem from the player PoV.


Usually when you have BGs that are annoying (wouldn't call them lopsided, since many of those are still super close) is when half the player base is on a healer character... so maybe saying everyone should "play one to get perspective" isn't that productive in the end?

As for the problem posed by too many healers queueing into battlegrounds, a role queue could go a long way... along with adding things like heal debuffs around relics/flags (so people can't just stand there spamming bash and crosshealing each other).

The format actually changes nothing in this regard.

You already know everything there is to be observed, because I spent 12 pages telling you all about it. That was my biggest mistake: foolishly convincing you of what will inevitably happen when 3-sided BGs return. And now, no matter what happens, you'll fight until your dying breath to deny people the choice, because that's who you are.

I did end up actually leaving the game because of the removal of the old BGs, haven't played in months and have zero plans of returning. Just happened to check out the forums today to see if anything has changed.... and well, I'm not surprised that nothing has. Sad, but not surprised.

I appreciate all of you that are still trying to voice their love of the three team BGs and why they should be brought back.

Moonspawn wrote: »

You'll see what popular means when 3-sided BGs return with the same rewards they added to 2-sided BGs.

♥

I'm not a big PVP person, so if you're arguing about who can be more "L33t" or whatever, IDGAF. If you want to know why PvE players never bother to que battle grounds anymore, I can tell you why I don't. It's a frustrating waste of time. When you finally get into a match, you have a group of hunter-killers on the other side, who live only to make other people miserable... Uh.. I mean, live to win in PVP. So, you can que for hours on end and never even get the daily reward for a win. At least with 4x4x4 you had a 2/3 chance to get the friggin daily and could use strategy. The way it is now, I won't touch that garbage, and neither will 90% of people who are mainly PvE. I actually used to enjoy BG and played a lot, far after my daily reward. (When people like me do that, que times go down, FYI). But I'm not wasting my time just so some SOB can say "Luuk! Our L33T group killed n00bz! We so awesome!" So yeah, BG's are broken. That's partly on ZoS, and partly on A-hole's who just want "more victims". Meanwhile, I have 10,000 other things in this game that are far more rewarding and worth my time.

Acetriad wrote: »

(…)So yeah, BG's are broken. That's partly on ZoS, and partly on A-hole's who just want "more victims". Meanwhile, I have 10,000 other things in this game that are far more rewarding and worth my time.

I belong to those players that exclusively play PvP, nothing else, snd mainly BGs in my case.
Yet, I am not a talented player and see no chance against many other players, but this doesnt prevent me from having fun trying out different builds and strategies.
Never using Meta builds and only wearing those weak(er) PvP-sets, as I dont do PvE and thus never get Dungeon-sets.

Its not about being victorous against weaker players or hoping for a ball group that rushes through the BG, instead I look for 1vs 1 and enjoy the different strategies of the BG-formats (for example I always stay back and defend the relic, no matter whats going on elsewhere).

I recommend to stop generally thinking about „us“ PvPers as „A-Holes“, its simply another content that attracts certain players for different reasons.

Acetriad wrote: »

Maybe if there were ranks, like in ToT, where you might get paired with people of comparable skill?
If PVP is your thing, fine. But don't expect everyone to show up just so you can kill them, with no reward on their part. That's not how you grow the PvP community. If I'm playing against another real person, sure, I want to win, but I want an actual challenge. I'm also not going to keep trying if you and your "L33T" team make any rewards impossible.

In theory ranked BGs would be nice.
In practice that simply wouldn't work well with the current BG population.
Most of the time there just aren't enough "good" players online at the same time to fill even one higher rank BG lobby.

So at the moment ranked BGs would only lead to longer queue times for higher ranked players while still putting them into your matches because there simply are no matches in their ranks.

Most good players would also like to fight others around their level more than just farming PvErs, but that is simply not realistically possible atm.

Idk I have been having fun in 8v8 solo queue BGs, though sometimes the more lopsided matches are frustrating.

I do think there is a lot more to player morale under the hood. A lopsided match usually starts with some good fights and tangles, and then becomes increasingly lopsided as morale on one side crumbles.

Moonspawn wrote: »

It's the 5 minutes of the ''looking for players'' stage. Do you think he should be adding 10 minutes instead? Since there are so many matches that fail to start.

I know why he adds the 5 minutes.
It's still ridiculous and simply trying to mislead ZOS. Maybe 1 in 5 BGs even takes anywhere close to the full 5 minutes to fill.
Also I think at this point very few matches actually fail to start completely, it's maybe 1 in 20 if even that.
BTW im not saying that is good, that should still be fixed. Just that he is making it out to be a much bigger issue than it actually is.

Moonspawn wrote: »

No point in repeating the reasons population was small yet again.

The reason is that the mode was awful, but you somehow can't accept that.

Moonspawn wrote: »

I'd personally have no problem if the rewards of the 2nd place team were somewhat reduced. I'm certain the result would be the same.

I'm literally 100% sure the results would not be anywhere near what you think.
BGs were completely dead before the update. Now they're at least somewhat alive.
Surely going back to 3 way BGs but reducing 2nd place rewards would make them massively popular all of a sudden makes a lot of sense.

Moonspawn wrote: »

The reason I want 3-sided BGs back is because they had the potential to be unpredictable, balanced, and actually fun for everyone involved.

8v8 can absolutely be all of those things too.
4v4 admittedly very often is predictable and unbalanced but that is because it's a competitive mode and ZOS isn't capable of creating actually competitive matchmaking.
4v4v4 was also horribly unbalanced and predictable the majority of the time just that in 4v4v4 the weakest team was focused by 2/3rds of the BG instead of half the BG.

Moonspawn wrote: »

The reason some people want to keep everyone trapped in 2-sided BGs is because they know it's much easier for members of the EU hive mind (on both teams) to bend over backwards to achieve whatever twisted goal they happen to share at any given moment, thus making a mockery out of Battlegrounds.

I have absolutely no idea what that is even supposed to mean?

Moonspawn wrote: »

If that's not your case then you should have no trouble ''mustering the basic human decency to recognize that one or two of the four current queue options should be replaced by 3-sided BGs.''

Has absolutely nothing to do with human decency.
I know that I myself and lots of other people i know would rather have all of the current queue options than have 4v4v4 replace one or even 2 of them.
So no thank you .